Create a new candidate record in BoondManager by entering first name, last name, and email, with optional contact details for complete candidate profiles.
Create a new candidate
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| Yes | |||
| phone | No | ||
| address | No | ||
| country | No | ||
| lastName | Yes | ||
| firstName | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Create a new candidate.' It does not mention whether creation is idempotent, what side effects occur, what the response contains, or what happens on duplicate email or missing data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with seven parameters and no annotations; it provides only a minimal statement of purpose rather than a structured, useful definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify expected behavior, return value, and constraints. It only names the operation, leaving the agent to infer response format, duplicate handling, and any organizational context around candidate creation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description mentions none of the seven parameters or the three required fields. An agent must rely entirely on property names in the schema; the description adds no semantic meaning beyond them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new candidate' states a clear action and resource, so an agent knows this tool creates candidates rather than searches or updates them. It does not add any details that distinguish it from other create tools beyond the resource name, which appears in the tool name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as boond_candidates_update or boond_candidates_search. The description merely restates the tool's purpose and implies creation without stating prerequisites or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.